--- Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you looked at the replacements such as XML::XPathScript or > XML::STX? Or others implemented in other languages that could be > ported? For XML <=> P6 > translations, are you aware of projects like XBind? > > There are a lot of wheels out there, I think p6l can't reinvent all > of them ;)
To answer a question you asked on an earlier thread, this is one of the ways that Perl makes doing XML difficult. Q: "What's the right CPAN lib to pull for parsing/rewriting XML?" A: Look, we've got a plethora of XML libs, all indistinguishable at first glance. You'll need to do a week-long research project to figure out what's what! OK? While P6ML may be off-topic for the language, maybe this issue isn't: Is there a plan for the "core libs"? In other words, since we're moving scads of things out of core, we're implying a set of standard libs. In P5 this was a very minimalist set, since must of what was essential was in core. Now I'm proposing that some technologies, like DBI, mod_perl, etc. have proven themselves so popular that they (1) will instantly get moved over; and (2) should probably be moved over exactly ONCE. Rather than having a maze of twisty database interfaces, all alike, we want DBI. Well, rather than having a slew of subtly incompatible XML interfaces, ... So I guess, at the language level I'm asking if there's a process in place to identify these essential libs and to move forward on them? =Austin
